The Law Cannot be Moral, it Can Only Be Legal

Dictated good–that is, the establishment of “law” under the auspices (and given absolute efficacy and purpose by the State–centralized, consolidated violence) of Governing Authority (power) to subjective and abstract ends, like “common good”, or the “people’s mandate”–is not morality. It is legality. And the two are completely antipodal. For if the law, not the individual, is the standard of morality to which men may be forced then choice is irrelevant. And if choice is irrelevant, moral agency is irrelevant. And if moral agency is irrelevant then there is no morality.

3 thoughts on “The Law Cannot be Moral, it Can Only Be Legal”

We have seen a proliferation of examples recently where law cannot inhibit evil, such as with so-called “gun-free zones”. Law can only punish evil AFTER it has been perpetrated. I would go so far as to say that law is not “moral” in the sense that it cannot define morality. And here I think we need to make a distinction between morality and ethics, which most people seem to use interchangeably when in reality they are mutually exclusive. Morality is foundational to metaphysics, while ethics are derived from one’s epistemology. Therefore one’s morality defines one’s ethics which is then the foundation of laws and not the other way around. So one could argue that bad ethics result from an improper understanding of morality. And if one does not understand morality, then you can end up with laws that are morally evil which has the effect of creating a conflict within good men who have to make a choice between remaining morally good or ethically evil if they so choose to obey such laws. This is what we see happening with “gun control”, when man is conflicted between his moral right to self-preservation and the force of law which compels him to forego such a right. Immorally evil laws create criminals out of good men for simply wanting to preserve their own lives.

I tend to believe that if choice and morality are corollary, which they are (why we don’t call the bunnies who eat our raspberries evil), then anything else added to the relationship can only drive a wedge between them. And once that’s done–that is, once choice is rendered in any measure irrelevant; once it is separated from morality–them morality is in categorical measure moot.

There should be no such thing as ethics, is what I’m saying. If your morality is a function of a rational metaphysic, you won’t need ethics, and thus you won’t need law. Which to me means that claiming the need for ethics is merely a concession that your metaphysic is irrational, in which case your ethics, and your law, will only serve destructive ends.

Actions based upon what you know is TRUE (your Metaphysics), rationally, will also automatically be GOOD. Because Truth and Goodness are corollaries–there isn’t one without the other. Therefore, ethics as some separate category are pointless, to me. And therefore Law is pointless.

I don’t need the law to tell me not to steal from someone. I know that when I commit theft I reap my own destruction. No one punishes me; I haven’t violated law, I have violated SELF. MY self.

And this is where hell comes in. When you commit existential crimes, you reap existential hell. It’s not being done TO you; its soley a consequence of your own choice, based on your own belief.

People think death is the great escape from their awful evil ideas and requisite actions. It isn’t. Because there is no such thing, except in the sense that Jesus means it: the end of rational Self, eternally.